If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

What the mod edited out as baiting was a totally accurate description of you people.

You simply don't get it because your mind lives in such a weird place. I'll try and dumb this down to the max -

THERE IS SOMETHING TOTALLY ****ED UP WITH A SOCIETY THAT HAS ALLOWED THIS SITUATION TO ARISE IN THE FIRST PLACE. GUNS DO NOT BELONG IN SCHOOLS. PERIOD.

And the "solution" you people offer is to have yet more guns.

my mind lives in a weird place? you live in this fantasy world that doesn't realize that bad people out there do have guns and they do use them. it's not a coincidence that all of these mass shootings are taking place in no gun zones because they know it's easy targets. I seriously don't understand how people don't realize this.

also lets use the Oregon Mall shooter as an example. he went into a mall right before Christmas and it was full of people and he killed 3. Do you know what stopped him? someone who had a carry and concealed license approached him with his gun, and he then killed himself. the mall is actually a no gun zone, but the man either didn't know it was, or brought a gun in anyway, and he probably saved a lot of lives because of it.

and my solution is allow more people do defend themselves. not just give out guns to everyone.

How unsurprising. Dude, give up trying to argue with valade. He cut you into little pieces, had you for breakfast, and shat you out.

Originally Posted by valade16

You've damned yourself with your very argument. If 90% of all people who die by suicide have a diagnosable psychiatric disorder at the time of their death then what are so many of them doing with access to firearms?

Shouldn't we make it a little harder for people who you've acknolwedged have mental disorders to get guns and then kill themselves and others?

As for your question, here is my answer:

I'm not in favor of banning assault rifles. I'm not in favor of banning anything. I am in favor of creating a more comprehensive system for guns control and sales; starting with mandatory training before purchasing a firearm, getting a psychiatrists authorization to own a firearm, having 2 year mandatory re-evaluations for remedial training and psychiatric evaluation, and the limiting on the amount of firearms and ammunition you can own unless good cause is shown to the contrary. I'm further for a closing of gun show sales that allow expedited procedures to buy firearms, I'm also for the closing of loopholes that allow you to purchase "build yourself" fully automatic weapons. Furthermore, I'm for a Government buyback program nationwide to reduce the number of firearms currently in our country.

The reason you can't ban all firearms is because A. Prohibition doesn't work at eliminating a problem, B. It would eliminate the main reason the 2nd Amendment is there in the first place (the threat of violent revolution should the need arise).

You are arguing a red-herring. You're essentially saying "The problem isn't the guns, it's the people who pop pills and then become mentally unstable as a result, but I don't think there should be anything to prohibit them from owning firearms.

This is a faulty argument in that one person could purchase a firearm legally and then it could be stolen from them, thus "obtained illegally" in this designation but still sold and purchased legally originally.

That is actually a case with a lot of weapons. The Newton shooter "obtained his firearms illegally" in that he stole them from his mother, but the mom obtained them legally.

Take away a lot of the firearms purchased legally and there will be less risk of someone obtaining a legally procurred firearm illegally.

Which one of those is the assault weapon? Answer: they're the same gun, one is just painted black with a scope and pistol grip on it. "Assault weapons" is such a loose term that can deem almost anything as an "assault weapon". The assault weapon ban just bans guns that look scary. Hell if anybody did their research of the criteria for guns to meet the qualifications for an "assault weapon" in the Federal Assault Weapon Ban, it clearly backs up what I just said.

So to sum it up, if your gun looks scary, it's illegal. Such a joke.

Yep. I went back and forth with some others in another thread about that. Said how the media is distorting the truth, but just got laughed at. It was some nate guy, one of the little rascals and a dude obcessed with headless scarecrows.

I showed thwm seperate pictures of the ruger mini 14. Of course they just read the links name lol and figured it out.

Yep. I went back and forth with some others in another thread about that. Said how the media is distorting the truth, but just got laughed at. It was some nate guy, one of the little rascals and a dude obcessed with headless scarecrows.

I showed thwm seperate pictures of the ruger mini 14. Of course they just read the links name lol and figured it out.

I tend to just ignore his posts... he's basically all forward with whatever Obama says

Actually, I believe an assault weapon is classified as any automatic firearm, and some semi-automatics.

Yep. If its a semi auto it has to have a detachable mag, plus at least one of a flash suppressir, bayonet lug, folding stock or pistol grip. Which is ****ing hilarious. None of those 4 make it anymore deadly.

Yep. If its a semi auto it has to have a detachable mag, plus at least one of a flash suppressir, bayonet lug, folding stock or pistol grip. Which is ****ing hilarious. None of those 4 make it anymore deadly.

A lot of them have increased range and accuracy, which would make them more deadly.

i barley post on this gun law ****, but ima keep real.... who gives two ***** if there's a gun law.... you can still get a gun anywhere, no one gonna stop you. go to the nearest hood and i bet you can get a gun for cheap too. you think people gonna follow a gun law hell no, if someone wanna pop some homie or do a shoot out all needs is the right people to get him one.

i barley post on this gun law ****, but ima keep real.... who gives two ***** if there's a gun law.... you can still get a gun anywhere, no one gonna stop you. go to the nearest hood and i bet you can get a gun for cheap too. you think people gonna follow a gun law hell no, if someone wanna pop some homie or do a shoot out all needs is the right people to get him one.

i barley post on this gun law ****, but ima keep real.... who gives two ***** if there's a gun law.... you can still get a gun anywhere, no one gonna stop you. go to the nearest hood and i bet you can get a gun for cheap too. you think people gonna follow a gun law hell no, if someone wanna pop some homie or do a shoot out all needs is the right people to get him one.

i barley post on this gun law ****, but ima keep real.... who gives two ***** if there's a gun law.... you can still get a gun anywhere, no one gonna stop you. go to the nearest hood and i bet you can get a gun for cheap too. you think people gonna follow a gun law hell no, if someone wanna pop some homie or do a shoot out all needs is the right people to get him one.

While the idea that you are trying to point out is somewhat true in a sense...the problem I have is that I just think it's sick that everyone in America could own a AK47 automatic assault rifle if the wanted to. None of us NEED that. We aren't going to war. We can protect ourselves if need be with much less fire power.

You've damned yourself with your very argument. If 90% of all people who die by suicide have a diagnosable psychiatric disorder at the time of their death then what are so many of them doing with access to firearms?

Shouldn't we make it a little harder for people who you've acknolwedged have mental disorders to get guns and then kill themselves and others?

As for your question, here is my answer:

I'm not in favor of banning assault rifles. I'm not in favor of banning anything. I am in favor of creating a more comprehensive system for guns control and sales; starting with mandatory training before purchasing a firearm, getting a psychiatrists authorization to own a firearm, having 2 year mandatory re-evaluations for remedial training and psychiatric evaluation, and the limiting on the amount of firearms and ammunition you can own unless good cause is shown to the contrary. I'm further for a closing of gun show sales that allow expedited procedures to buy firearms, I'm also for the closing of loopholes that allow you to purchase "build yourself" fully automatic weapons. Furthermore, I'm for a Government buyback program nationwide to reduce the number of firearms currently in our country.

The reason you can't ban all firearms is because A. Prohibition doesn't work at eliminating a problem, B. It would eliminate the main reason the 2nd Amendment is there in the first place (the threat of violent revolution should the need arise).

You are arguing a red-herring. You're essentially saying "The problem isn't the guns, it's the people who pop pills and then become mentally unstable as a result, but I don't think there should be anything to prohibit them from owning firearms.

This is a faulty argument in that one person could purchase a firearm legally and then it could be stolen from them, thus "obtained illegally" in this designation but still sold and purchased legally originally.

That is actually a case with a lot of weapons. The Newton shooter "obtained his firearms illegally" in that he stole them from his mother, but the mom obtained them legally.

Take away a lot of the firearms purchased legally and there will be less risk of someone obtaining a legally procurred firearm illegally.

Very well said, but I'd like to ask a question.

Do you think these even basic requirements are going to limit any or even some of the gun violence we currently have in America?

And furthermore, is this process going to do anything about the black market existence of guns that we already have? It seems that most of what this does is keep away the people that shouldn't own guns from having them legally. But it won't necessarily stop them from getting their hands on a gun if they really want it.

A lot of what Jones is arguing is the existence of guns to protect the people from their gov't. Which might have had something to do with the existence of the second amendment in the first place. If we provide too strict of gun laws, or even completely ban them (not that anyone is actually suggesting that) doesn't this make our country more susceptible to take over?

I'm not trying to take a position on the debate, I'm just trying to ask good questions.